How Erdogan’s Adventurism Has Opened a Fissure Within NATO and in US Presidential Politics

In an astonishingly short time, the ill-considered decision of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to ambush a Russian jet has had far reaching consequence far beyond those apparent in the initial days following the fatal attack. (For the situation in the immediate aftermath of the Su-24 downing, see my “‘With Us or with the Terrorists’: It’s Clear Which Side Turkey Is On”.)

The fundamental problem with U.S. policy in seeking to defeat the Islamic State (ISIS), al-Qaeda in Syria and Iraq (let’s remember that ISIS was originally just an al-Qaeda offshoot) and other jhadists is that the US is still taking its cues from regional allies who are essentially on the other side: with the terrorists, not against them. (Combining journalism and analysis with political activism, on December 2 I launched on the White House site a petition to “LIST ERDOGAN’S TURKEY AS STATE SPONSOR OF TERRORISM; VOID US ALLIANCE WITH TURKEY”. In only one day, the petition collected well over 100 signatures. This is more than two thirds of the number needed in the first month to keep this petition as a publicly posted black eye for Turkey on the official White House website.)

This means above all Saudi Arabia and Turkey, and significantly Qatar and other Gulf States (United Arab Emirates, Kuwait). As long as they are willing to dump money and weapons into the hands of jihadists in the hope of overthrowing the secular, nationalist Syrian government and replace it with a sectarian, Sunni, Sharia-ruled state – and the US (that is, the Obama administration) is unwilling to break with them and tell them to stop it – it’s hard to see how this conflict can be resolved by negotiation.

So far, the Obama Administration has not been willing to break with our supposed “allies,” and by extension their jihadist assets. This week, in Belgrade, Secretary Kerry reiterated once again his view that the war can end only with Assad’s departure.

Trouble for NATO

Erdogan has walked into a confluence of circumstances where his and his allies’ pro-terror mask has fallen off. At this point, it is apparent to everyone that the Turkish-Syria border has become the tipping point for whether the upper hand in the Syria war goes to the jihadists supported by the West (US, NATO), Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc., or to Damascus and its supporters, notably Russia and Iran.

Reportedly, both the US and France have asked Erdogan to close the border with Syria. It’s highly unlikely he will do that(though he might eventually say he will, but for now the answer is No). Turkey’s doing so would cripple, perhaps kill, ISIS while empowering Turkey’s main enemies: Assad (supported by Russia) and even more so the Kurds (who are supported by both the US and Russia). Even more than for facilitation of their mutually lucrative oil trade, both Erdogan and the jihadists need to keep open transit for fighters from around the world into and out of Syria.

Conversely, Assad’s forces, with the Russian support and working in loose coordination with the Kurds, are moving methodically to close the border themselves. If they succeed in doing so, that’s “game over” for Turkey’s policy. Deployment of the S-400 antiaircraft system allows Moscow to impose a de facto no-fly zone in Syria, limiting Turkey’s options.

Never has Turkey’s stock in Washington been as low as it is now. Conversely, never have so many voices not usually friendly to Russia or President Vladimir Putin now taken a pro-Moscow stance.

The Obama Administration foolishly is telling Moscow they can only play a constructive role if they tailor their policy to that of the “U.S.-led coalition.” What a joke. The US started hitting ISIS oil convoys (with 45 minutes’ warning) only after Moscow exposed that traffic and Russian planes started bombing it. Putin knows what he wants in Syria: save the Syrian government and state, defeat the terrorists (who are a days’ drive from Russian territory, protect Syria’s Christians. There’s no mystery.

It’s probably a mystery to Obama himself to try to figure out what he wants: (a) Destroy ISIS but stay in sync with ISIS-sponsors Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar; (b) Get rid of ISIS and Assad, with no idea who or what would come next (either Libya-style chaos care of Obama and Hillary, or more likely a jihad terror state based in Damascus); (c) Secure “democracy” and “human rights” for Syrians while condemning huge swathes of the Syrian population to the jihadists’ knife (Alawites, Christians, Shia, secular Sunnis). In a word, it’s irrational.

Presidential Contenders Divide

Now even the Republican Party is conflicted. Some of the GOP contenders (Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham) advocate a policy essentially the same as Obama’s and Hillary’s – just more of it. All the clichés are trotted out: lead from the front, not behind; strong not weak – but pursue the same goals. Their recommended course would resolve none of the contradictions of the Obama/Hillary policy and in fact would exacerbate them while putting the US on the front line.

The fact that Cruz – who has an accurate gut sense of where to place himself in the GOP field, hence his sticking so close to Trump the latter mentioned him as a possible Vice Presidential pick (which he wisely rejected) – sees foreign policy realism as the right line to take at this point in the GOP race speaks volumes about not only the country’s center of gravity, but where Republican primary voters are. (The GOP establishment is another story).

It’s far, far too soon to say that the neocons’ domination of what passes for foreign policy thinking in the “Stupid Party” is over. They will not go away quietly and no doubt have a few tricks up their sleeves. But Cruz’s apparent heresy from what has become GOP orthodoxy is a welcome sign. Given Cruz’s evident political acumen, it’s a smart money place.

We need to get away from the knee-jerk one-dimensionality of strong vs. weak, American leadership from the front vs. from behind and start talking about smart vs. dumb. Calling for US strength and leadership is one thing but applying them in pursuit of ill-defined goals – like support for Christian-killing jihadists in Syria – don’t serve our country’s interests or reflect our American values.

7 thoughts on “How Erdogan’s Adventurism Has Opened a Fissure Within NATO and in US Presidential Politics”

We need to face the very unpleasant possibility that a significant segment of American leadership in both parties are not at all committed to the destruction of ISIS and Al-Qaeda but quite the contrary, support there continued existence and relevance through there proxies in Turkey and the Gulf as a sickeningly reckless strategy to destabilize our economic adversaries in the east (Russia, China, Iran etc).

It wouldn't be the first time. The American empire has used the plague of Wahhabism/Salafism repeatedly over the decades in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Kosovo, and Libya just to name a few. The US often uses proxies to support these undesirables in order to save face on the world stage but Europe is starting to wise up and tire of America's empire games. The American people are too and if the powers at be don't wise up these collective international forces are gonna rise up and the "establishment" will find themselves on the outside looking in if there lucky enough to find themselves at all.

To put it bluntly, there's a reason there's no more czars in Russia and that has nothing to do with communism and everything to do with physics. What goes up must come down. If Washington doesn't learn this lesson soon then it's all coming down, both at home and abroad. The craziness has to end. The empire has to be shut down. The only way to stop terrorism is to stop the imperialist that births it.

Ted Cruz does not have the good sense to follow Michael Scheuer's advice and leave the situation alone, letting America's enemies slaughter each other. Also if Rand Paul was an isolationist I'd vote for him. He is too cowardly and craven to put America first.

As Dan Sanchez said, defeat ISIS by doing nothing. Please do *not* meddle in Asia any longer. You've done us enough damage in ceaseless interference since Korea and the Mossadegh coup in 1953. Just leave us alone, we'll find our own way, thanks very much.

In the past 2 weeks, I am constantly looking for "the other side of the fabricated story".
Your fact based and humanity based site gives me a ton of hope and is revealing rapidly, "what I have suspected for many years"….since the Vietnam War…."My main question was always…..Why are we constantly involved in endless little wars all over the entire planet and it feels as though the entire planet is in chaos, now, more than ever"….thus the return to the victory of WW2…..and the bombing of Japan? A living shock and horror moment for the entire human race….." (Remember any such familiar military tactics in history? Anywhere?

Ted Cruz does not have the good sense to follow Michael Scheuer's advice and leave the situation alone, letting America's enemies slaughter each other. Also if Rand Paul was an isolationist I'd vote for him. He is too cowardly and craven to put America first.